Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:15:51 +0800 | From | Harald Welte <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Enable acpi-cpufreq driver for VIA/Centaur CPUs |
| |
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Hmm. This all really should be just > > static int check_est_cpu(unsigned int cpuid) > { > struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpu = &cpu_data(cpuid); > return cpu_has(cpu, X86_FEATURE_EST); > } > > I suspect, with no vendor tests. That's the whole _point_ of CPU features, > after all.
That's what I was thinking, too. If there was no such vendor test, it would have worked ever since the code was written (the C7 is by far not a new component, it's around for years).
> If some vendor claims EST but doesn't actually support the EST interfaces, > we should just have fixups to clear the bit in the per-vendor cpuinfo > code, not in some random driver.
agreed.
> The only thing that makes me nervous about this is how close to 2.6.30 we > are. I'd be happier if this was resolved by doing this as a patch > post-2.6.30, and then adding 'stable@kernel.org' as a Cc: tag, and > backporting it to 2.6.30.1 if no problems appear. > > It's not like this is a regression, I think. > > Does that sound like a reasonable plan?
Sounds fine with me. But what I would definitely suggest merging before 2.6.30 is the marking e_powersaver EXPERIMENTAL + DANGEROUS patch.
Regards, -- - Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@viatech.com> http://linux.via.com.tw/ ============================================================================ VIA Free and Open Source Software Liaison
| |